As a forewarning for my more consistent readers, this will be the most extreme post I have ever written. In it I will provide a full, radical, basic, consistent alternative to what has become conventional governance in our States United – one that is perhaps by fate, original, in the most absolute sense conceivable.

With that said, I will remind all of the disclaimer posted on this site, which clearly states that all opinions expressed are entirely my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of any organization I take part in, including those in which I play a leadership role.

And with that said, I will remind all that I hold truth against all things and against all men. There are no exceptions, and so far as I am aware, there are no legitimate arguments to the contrary possible for what I am about to share.

##############

James Steele II is a frequent commenter on this blog. His understanding of his right to life and liberty is absolute. It is matched by few alive in this world today.

James Steele II is also a citizen of the United Kingdom. He does not live in the United States of America. As a result, there have been numerous times on this blog when I wished to express to him why I am so happy to have been born in our federal union, and why I will never abandon it.

But I have not, because I knew to do so properly would take a degree of effort not fit for a comment. I knew that to fully express my joy and convictions, a post would be required – this post.

My joy and conviction to never abandon our united States lies in a self generated concept I had in the Summer of 2010. My concept has been absolute from the get go.

Some time later, I found an approximate description and proper term for my idea – decalarationism.

The term as Wikipedia describes it, is not the exact same as my idea, but is close enough for me to use and imprint a new meaning upon – the right meaning.

The description Wikipedia provides states that…

“Declarationism is a legal philosophy that incorporates the United States Declaration of Independence into the body of case law on level with the United States Constitution. It holds that the Declaration is a natural law document and so that natural law has a place within American jurisprudence.”

And…

“Proponents claim that the concept is derived from the philosophical structure contained in the Declaration of Independence and assertion that it was the Declaration that created the nation, the Constitution creating only the federal government. According to this view, the authority to create the Constitution derives from the prior act of nation-creation accomplished by the Declaration. The Declaration declares that the people have a right to alter or abolish any government once it becomes destructive of their natural rights. The turn away from the Articles of Confederation with the ratification of the Constitution was an action of this sort and so the Constitution’s authority exists within the legal framework established by the Declaration. The Constitution cannot, then, be interpreted as though it were the foundation of constitutional law, in the absence of principles derived from the Declaration”

My disagreements with the Wikipedia description are in bold. My remedy for this disagreement is not to disprove, but to further define – to pinpoint the ultimate core, the pinnacle rule of law in these American States, that need not be added, but reaffirmed.

My refinements are as follows in regards to the Wikipedia description of declarationism, leaving my own definition independent to function as an expression of my original idea.

1. The United States Declaration of Independence is not “on level” with the United States Constitution – the second plan of government for our union of States – it is, and has been since the day of it’s creation, irrevocably and forever superior.

Governments receive their power in one of two ways. By just consent of the governed, or by the initiation of force. There are no possible alternatives.

My discrepancy is that the United States Constitution is not a government – it is a written document that comprehensively details a plan of and for a specific government.

But a plan without a purpose is no plan at all. It cannot exist any sooner than a house without a foundation upon which to rest.

This is a physical impossibility.

As such, I state that the Declaration of Independence is the foundation upon which the United States Constitution currently rests and derives it’s power from as the plan of government which it is – not only because it created a nation, but because of a single section of a single sentence contained within the document.

The collection of words that represents the greatest achievement in the history of mankind – the triumph and freedom of man from men.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,”

2. This sentence highlights my second and final disagreement with the Wikipedia definition of “declarationism”.

The current constitution of our American States is not only not the foundation of law in the absence of principles (plural) found in the Declaration of Independence – any part of it is without authority if it does not filter through that single principle forever inscribed in the Declaration of Independence.

That the purpose of government – the only purpose of government given in the Declaration of Independence – is to secure the rights of man.

That’s it.

#####################

What does this mean?

It means that any part of the United States Constitution – our current set of chains for the general government between the States, a written delegation of limited powers, with all powers not delegated remaining with the States and the people – not in perfect alignment with the singular, written in stone purpose of government, is …

invalid

illegitimate

illegal

void

null

and of no effect.

More literally, if a power was not delegated to the federal government through the current plan of government, the power does not exist for the federal government to exercise.

If a power given to (or taken by) the federal government does not filter through the purpose of government, it was never up for delegation in the first place – and the general government has never had such power.

…

The has never had part is important, because I am taking this multiple steps further to crystallize the true meaning of declarationism.

I will do this with two guideposts. Resolved and proposed.

Resolved stands for a concept that has always been and still is in full effect. Nothing but re-affirming what already exists will do when this term is used. Anything else will result in a perpetuation and amplification of the problems we face in our States United – and even if a temporary relief is found, relapse of the original problem will follow. Band-aids do not heal what requires surgery (alter), and in some cases, amputation (abolish).

Proposed stands for actions and ideas that must come into full effect. New actions and new ideas must take hold for what I propose to manifest into reality. Little or no history exists for what must be done. The path is new – just like the founding of our union of States once was.

…

RESOLVED

No action or institution of the government between the States – the federal government of the United States of America – can violate or ever be in contradiction with, in any way, shape, or form with the stated, singular purpose upon which the plan it strictly operates by, derives it’s power from.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,”

The greatest lie in American history is that the federal government can legally operate outside the bounds of this singular principle.

RESOLVED

Man has a right to his life – his own life.

Man has a right to his liberty, stemming from his right to life.

Man has a right to pursue his own happiness in accordance with his own values and for his own reasons.

Man has a right to exist for his own sake, and his own sake alone.

No man can posses a right that supersedes the right of another.

Man has a right to defend his rights with any and all force necessary – necessary the moment no options are left to him.

RESOLVED

The rights of man are not a matter of practically – they are a matter of reality. Their existence cannot be argued against any sooner than the inherent ability to argue can be argued against.

The fact that a man exists and can argue an idea pre-supposes his right to exist – stemming from his right to reason (his right to think freely), stemming from his right to liberty, stemming from his right to life.

RESOLVED

Every act and institution of government created and witnessed since the signing of the Declaration of Independence, not in perfect alignment with the only purpose of government, has been illegal, is illegal, is void, null, and of no effect or legitimate authority.

Every agency created that violates the rights of man, every law* passed that violates the rights of man, every court case ruled that violates the rights of man – every single action taken that violates the rights of man since the founding of this country – is illegal, void, and of no legitimate force.

*Illegal laws are not laws and have never been laws — they exist no more than unicorns do.

RESOLVED

The judicial and executive branches of the general government between the States were not delegated the power to write law.

Every federal law not written and passed by the legislative branch of the federal government is null, void, and of no legitimate force or effect.

Every executive order that acts as a law, and every “regulation” ever passed by any body of the federal government other than the legislative, is illegal, void, null, and of no effect.

RESOLVED

The delegation of man’s rights to a general government between the American States is impossible – it violates the written in stone purpose of government to secure the rights of man – the legal foundation upon which the plan of government by which such government strictly operates by law.

The United States Constitution contains no such delegations of power. If any amendments were to ever be made to such plan of government, they would be void, null, and of no effect.

In alignment with this truth, no amendment made to the constitution of our States United can ever assume such delegation.

RESOLVED

The 16th amendment to the United States Constitution for the extraction of wealth by gunpoint is illegal, null, void, and of no effect. To make this amendment legal is impossible. Personal income tax requires state ownership of the individual.

No such thing exists – nor can it ever. The general government of these States United was instituted to secure the rights of man.

Pointing a gun at him and attempting to forcibly extract the fruits of his labor – the sum of his life and liberty – is slavery of the spirit.

It is a blatant denial of man’s right to life and liberty.

It is modern day slavery, not equally, but more abhorrent than the physical slavery that ended in the 19th century by it’s sinister nature.

Man’s right to life and liberty is not a matter of practicality. There is no percentage of personal income to be taken at gun point that is acceptable to any man with a shred of dignity and integrity left in the world.

RESOLVED

The state does not own the individual. No man can be forced into physical slavery without violating the rights of another.

No man can be legally forced into military servitude – military slavery. No draft, under any name, or any pretense, can ever be legal in these States united.

The foreign or domestic nature of any such potential draft is irrelevant. Man’s right to life and liberty is not a matter of practicality. Man can choose to defend his union of American States or watch it perish – his choice is not to be decided at the gun point of his brothers.

As inscribed, the purpose of government is to secure of the rights of man – the initiating oppressor is of no relevance.

The ability to form a military for the purpose of national defense is an expression of the defined purpose of government as witnessed in the Declaration of Independence – this subsequent purpose does not supersede the singular written and supreme purpose of government.

RESOLVED

No man can be forced to purchase a product or service, at the barrel of a gun, or otherwise.

RESOLVED

The federal government cannot restrict what a man will and will not put into his body, so long as he does not violate the rights of others.

The 21st amendment to the United States Constitution is unnecessary. The 18th was illegal to begin with.

Marijuana is legal on the federal level in our United States, and always has been.

RESOLVED

No law enforcement officer in our United States – who has sworn a sacred oath to the United States Constitution – can be legally forced to execute unconstitutional, illegal acts.

He is not relieved of his oath when an illegal order comes from his superior.

Of special concern, any acts that relate to

Military slavery

Personal income tax

Forced purchase of a product

The ingestion of any plant, food, or substance

should be ignored and resisted if necessary.

Any law enforcement officer that does submit to such orders is in violation of the United States Constitution, and the purpose of government as expressly defined in the Declaration of Independence — the legal foundation which the US Constitution stands upon.

Any law enforcement officer that unjustly violates the rights of man should be arrested on site by his fellow law enforcement officers and face the full punishment allowed by law in his State.

Men of integrity stand on their own judgement.

RESOLVED

All federal institutions and federal law enforcement agents not expressly permitted in the United States Constitution, nor present historically since the founding of our union, are unconstitutional, and therefore, illegal. Any such law enforcement agent is void of legitimate authority and should obey his oath by resigning immediately.

All employees of such illegal institutions should resign immediately. To not do so is to remain in violation of oath to the United States Constitution.

To keep their oath to the United States Constitution, all law enforcement agents of the States must protect the citizens of their States by any and all force necessary from such illegal agents of the federal government, not expressly permitted, nor present historically since the founding.

RESOLVED

The federal government was never granted the power to assassinate it’s citizens, nor can it ever be. Any member of government who calls for the assassination of an American citizen and attempts his execution should face trial for direct and blatant disobedience to both the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

PROPOSED

All members of the United States military currently engaged in acts of war against sovereign states thrown down their weapons and return to the United States immediately to face trial.

The chief executive officer of our United States does not have the delegated power to carry out war against sovereign nations without a declaration of war from the congress.

No member of the military who participated in such acts was ever relieved of his or her oath to the United States Constitution – and they have broken written law in following such orders.

PROPOSED

Every living president who committed acts of war against sovereign states without a declaration of war from the congress face trial for blatantly violating his sacred oath to the United States Constitution.

PROPOSED

Every living member – former and present – of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government who did not, on record, cry outrage at all unconstitutional, undeclared, illegal acts of war against sovereign states, face trial and punishment for disobeying their oath to the United States Constitution, and therefore, acting illegally as members of the federal government.

PROPOSED

80% of the federal government be abolished – starting with the central bank. The remaining 20% be altered to reflect it’s original form, and adhere to it’s ultimate purpose and supreme law.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,”

PROPOSED

Every State that wishes to remain a part of this federal union place a permanent written sign above every door to every building of government in their State.

“Governments are instituted among men to secure the rights of man. A=A. No right can be sacrificed to the benefit of another – since all rights stem from man’s individual right to his own life. Those who would violate the rights of man do so at their own peril.”

RESOLVED

The United States Constitution is a plan of government for the general government between the States – the federal government.

Such plan has been selectively enforced against member States of the federal union by the initiation of force and only the initiation of force.

Each State has it’s own constitution, it’s own plan of government.

The initiation of force is the rejection of the written purpose of the government as inscribed in the Declaration of Independence.

The independent States that form the United States, and created the federal government – which is currently broken in every way – have never been legally required to follow the United States Constitution as a plan of government.

To say that have been and are legally required to is to state that the initiation of force – the core denial of the man’s right to life – is legally valid.

It’s not.

RESOLVED

Independent States not only have a “right” by contract to secede from the union they created – since the power of independent secession was never delegated by the States, only suppressed by the initiation of force – they are also obligated to adhere to the written purpose of government declared at the founding of our union.

Any State found to be in violation of such singular purpose, should be rejected from the union immediately, as such “right” to partake in subject Union is dissolved when a State violates the rights of man.

The same way a man dissolves his right to life in the canceling of another man’s right to life.

An example of such violation is compulsory schooling and the funding of public schooling by the barrel of a gun.

################

IN SUMMARY

As evidenced by the dissolution of the Articles of Confederation and it’s replacement with the United States Constitution, the Declaration of Independence is the supreme written document of our States United.

It’s singular stated purpose of government for which all actions of government on every level in our United States must adhere to, is to secure the rights of man (singular).

A=A

No security can be found in the sacrifice of one right for another. To argue so is an outright denial of the most basic law of logic.

Man has an absolute right to his life. The right was expressed in the greatest triumph in human history – the triumph of man over and from men – written in the form of the Declaration of Independence.

This is a triumph written in stone – that is indeed our supreme law which all government must adhere to.

It is a triumph that once lost, is never replaced.

This is why I will never abandon the United States of America — a union of States where it is still possible to defend one’s life and liberty by any and all force necessary.

This is why I have no intention of leaving this earth until the government of these American States returns to it’s proper, singular, and supreme purpose.

To secure the rights of man.

In the words of JFK

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 196235th president of US 1961-1963 (1917 – 1963)

-Anthony Dream Johnson

Share this :

About Anthony Dream Johnson

CEO, founder, and architect of The 21 Convention, Anthony Dream Johnson is the leading force behind the world's first and only "panorama event for life on earth". He has been featured on WGN Chicago, and in the NY Times #1 best seller The Four Hour Work Week.
His stated purpose for the work he does is "the actualization of the ideal man", a purpose that has led him to found and host The 21 Convention across 3 continents and for 6 years in a row. Anthony blogs vigorously at TheDreamLounge.net and Declarationism.com.

61 Responses to Liberty Unlocked: Declarationism

I have always heard the phrase ‘America, land of the free’ bandied about in literature, movies etc. Until not too long ago I never really understood what people meant by that. I understand now that what they were referring to was the Declaration of Independence.

I always thought that I lived in a free society up until recently when I realised what Britains current, and every government in place here, had imposed by force upon the countries individual citizens. I always knew that my life was my own, but I did not before reconcile that with what governments purpose should be.

I’ll be visting the United States, specifically the state of Michigan in a couple of weeks to attend a course. I look forward to breathing in the air of a land that is free.

I count the days until I get to meet the man who exemplifies all that is good.

I have a question because I like concrete examples… With the whole recent wikileaks things and people digging up dirt for ages, I’m sure you can pull up many examples of government acting in ways that go against your philosophy, and as such against the good of the population (etc..); but what is one example where something is being done, that everyone is aware of, and is basically the status quo and accepted, that you thing should be reversed and that would have drastic benefits?

If you have a job that provides a paycheck, currency is taken out by force to go to a social security fund.

This fund no longer exists. You are paying for something by force that you will never receive.

And this is aside the fact that the debt based currency is being rapidly debased into oblivion. There will be no such thing as a fiat “US Dollar” by the time we are old — no matter who takes the office of the president.

I am of the freedom movement and agree with much of what you write, but you’re committed some fairly egregious errors here:

1) First, you have some fundamental philosophical problems. The ultimate authority for political action is not the US Constitution, but a rational code of ethics that exists independently of any written document. The Constitution, even as originally written, contains serious flaws and can be disregarded so far as those flaws exist. Furthermore, politicians have been shitting on the Constitution for so long that it is now often practically necessary to violate the Constitution in order to approximate the best (most moral) course of action. Even Ron Paul violates the Constituion when he has to.

2) The problems with unconstitutional government agencies are that they exist and that voters tolerate them, not that people work for them. Even if the country came to its senses tomorrow, the government apparati couldn’t be abolished overnight; a transition period lasting years would be necessary to avoid catastrophic dislocations. Therefore, it is unreasonable to demand the immediate resignation of all government employees in regulatory positions. In fact, it is best that they are staffed by people of the liberty orientation.

3) Your statement to the effect that US soldiers are criminals is wrong, and dangerously so. Even Ron Paul wouldn’t say this. First, military personnel act under coercion, so the responsible parties are the ones who do the coercing – i.e. the government officials who give the orders. And the US needs a military, so it is not wrong to join even if the country is engaged in immoral operations. Second, assuming that by “sovereign” states you mean the Arab nations, understand that these are criminal dictatorial regimes and that they have no rights in the first place. It was morally permissible (if not fiscally responsible) for the US to invade Iraq, for the oil or any other reason, because the government of that country was invalid to begin with.

You’re on the right track with this school of thought, but you still need a lot of philosophical refining. I suggest reading less Ron Paul and more Ayn Rand (her nonfiction).

1) Ron Paul violates the United States Constitution? I’d like to see some examples. And voting to lower the income tax is not one of them.

2) Either they are abolished or they slowly collapse. Take your pick, because there isnt much of an in between. This is where even Ron Paul gets it wrong. Liberty does not come about slowly. Liberty does not come about when “public opinion” shifts. This is a collectivist mentality and it’s totally devoid of reality. Take a look at the events leading up to the first American civil war, the war for independence. Think it was happy times?

3) No man is above the law. All soldiers swear an oath to protect and uphold the United States Constitution. If they violate that law they are by default, “criminals”. This does not mean they should be punished — I only suggest we live by the rule of law. A declaration of war by the congress is a valid part of our supreme law.

1) There are occasions, few as they are, when Ron Paul violates the Constitution in order to maintain respect for a principle. For example, by requesting earmarks for his district, he does something unconstitutional in order to make right for something he believes is immoral (taxation), even though the income tax is permitted by the Constitution. He also wants to preserve Social Security for current pensioners for the same reason. On at least one occasion, he cast a vote of very dubious constitutionality in favor of the 10 commandments being displayed in congress. There are surely more examples.

2) Illegal government agencies have existed for 100+ years and they can continue existing for a few more, provided that the country moves decidedly toward laissez-faire. Economic activity in the US has grown up around controls, and in order to remove those controls safely, the planners would have to make their intentions known years in advance and give people time to adjust their activities. If you removed all controls immediately, catastrophic market failures would occur, the failures would be blamed on the free market, and the controls would come back permanently as fast as they were abolished.

Liberty can only stand in a country where the people demand it. That isn’t a collectivist mentality, it’s the reality that a country’s politics follows from its culture. The US lapsed into statism because, even during the country’s earlier period, the American population never appreciated the concept of individual rights. Freedom can’t stand on the shoulders of one man like Thomas Jefferson or Ron Paul. In order for it to exist, a majority of the voting population must demand a political system based on strict respect for individual rights.

3) If you don’t want US soldiers to be punished, why do you demand that they face trial? And if you consider them criminals, why don’t want them punished? Those are contradictions.

Soldiers are not responsible for the policies of their government. They act with guns to their heads the same as you and I when we pay taxes. If they don’t obey their commands, they will be court-marshalled, charged with serious crimes, thrown in prison and will have their lives ruined. If participating in an illegal war automatically makes one a criminal, then paying taxes to fund those campaigns when you could accept prison as an alternative makes you a criminal.

Also, by what criteria do you judge a war as being criminal? Is it simply the absence of a declaration by congress that you object to, or the fact that the US attacked a “sovereign” state? If it’s the latter, and you think the US has acted criminally by attacking a totalitarian regime, then you implicitly sanction a totalitarian regime’s right to exist, which is utterly corrupt.

4) The neo-con remark betrays a novice understanding of the principles you are attempting to champion.

“That isn’t a collectivist mentality, it’s the reality that a country’s politics follows from its culture.”

And WHO decides a nation’s culture? This is the question you fail to ask your self — yet you have provided an answer.

“In order for it to exist, a majority of the voting population must demand a political system based on strict respect for individual rights.”

That’s right Brian, liberty exists only when the whim of the majority deems it appropriate. It is subjective to the whims of the masses.

No thanks.

“Freedom can’t stand on the shoulders of one man like Thomas Jefferson or Ron Paul. ”

To the contrary, it can only exist on their shoulders. Ron Paul is the Thomas Jefferson of our day. If this union is to avoid a soviet style collapse, it will be on his merit. Others will have contributed, but he is the one who will have made it possible.

“The neo-con remark betrays a novice understanding of the principles you are attempting to champion.”

Says the collectivist who places the existence of liberty on the merit of an undefinable mass.

Nothing I wrote reflects a collectivist orientation. That you infer as much proves that your understanding of philosophy is primitive and that you do not yet have the skills to represent this movement properly.

Read it again: a nation’s political course is determined by the IDEAS that pervade its culture – the IDEAS held by the majority of its potential voters. Just because I used the word “majority” in a sentence doesn’t mean I am in favor of collectivism. What it means is that the fight for liberty is an intellectual battle, not a political one, and America will never have liberty until the country first has a major intellectual revolution. Until that bright morning when the MAJORITY of people have come to appreciate the concept of individual rights, the arguments of people like Ron Paul will continue to fall on mostly deaf ears, and the country will only lapse from one form of statism to a worse one. The main credit to Ron Paul is that he planted an intellectual seed and spread his ideas, not that he accomplished anything politically.

“If you don’t want US soldiers to be punished, why do you demand that they face trial? And if you consider them criminals, why don’t want them punished? Those are contradictions.”

Because any US solider engaged in an act of war is in violation of the supreme law he swore an oath to protect and uphold — he is breaking THE law of the land. If they don’t face trial, the rule of law is not being respected. This does not mean his peers have to find him guilty of such a crime, it means the rule of law is taken as an absolute.

“They act with guns to their heads the same as you and I when we pay taxes.”

While personal income tax is not worth becoming a martyr over — since it can be defeated by peaceful means — I have yet to pay a dime of personal income tax.

” If you removed all controls immediately, catastrophic market failures would occur, the failures would be blamed on the free market, and the controls would come back permanently as fast as they were abolished.”

In a tyranny of the majority, sure they would. In an absolutely free society, they would be gone for good.

“Also, by what criteria do you judge a war as being criminal? Is it simply the absence of a declaration by congress that you object to, or the fact that the US attacked a “sovereign” state? If it’s the latter, and you think the US has acted criminally by attacking a totalitarian regime, then you implicitly sanction a totalitarian regime’s right to exist, which is utterly corrupt.”

Any war not declared by the congress is by definition, unconstitutional, and therefore, illegal. There is nothing more to be said unless an amendment is made to our supreme law.

You have a mistaken idea of what it means to accept reason as your only absolute. It means that you are willing to recognize the facts of reality for what they are and that you use logic to the best of your ability to derive the best conclusions you can. It doesn’t mean that you will automatically be correct about the technical details of politics or anything else. You can be committed to reason and still be utterly wrong about any number of things, as your post clearly illustrates.

One more thing, as a practical suggestion. Be careful about injecting politics into your speech and writing too often, especially when it has nothing to do with the subject matter. Doing so is a sure way to alienate your audience.

You suggest reading more Ayn Rand, something which anyone with a thorough understanding of her philosophy could tell Anthony has already done. Considering this suggestion do you not find the above comment a little contradictory?

He may have read Ayn Rand’s philosophy, but he doesn’t understand it, And I am not adominishing him against writing about politics in his blog, but against injecting politics when it has nothing to do with the subject matter.

I believe you missed the point of this post Brian … not only are “politics” relevant to the subject — they are the subject.

Governments are instituted among men to secure the rights of man. I declare that this is the supreme law of all member states of our United States, and of the government between the states, as it is the only stated purpose of government in the founding document.

In other words — no political action is legal if it violates the rights of man.

I hold this truth against all things, and against all men.

You may have failed to realize how radical of an idea this is. Not anymore.

I wasn’t talking about this post – a political blog is an appropriate place to write about politics. But political remarks now seem to pervade almost everything you do – even in your video interview with that girl, when she asked you to explain your convention, you took an umprovoked swipe at Obama. I’m just saying, even from the perspective of a hardcore advocate of limited government such as myself, it comes off as slighly bizarre.

Why should it seem bizzare that a man who clearly states his absolute, then acts upon that absolute. When asked questions his answers are determined at their core by this absolute, so his answering them is an action determined by that absolute.

This should not seem bizzare to any rational man who gave it but a moments thought. There is no contradiction, no compromise.

To attack a dictator is not an act of aggression. A dictator is aggressive by definition and therefore has no rights. The government of a free country can validly dispose of a dictator if it is in the free country’s interest to do so, and valid reasons are not limited to tit-for-tat warfare.

The constitutionality of the act (going to war without a declaration) is an altogether different issue. But if the government goes to war illegally, the soldiers are not responsible because they act under coercion. To call them criminals and call for their heads is disgustingly wrong.

My concept of limited government doesn’t permit whims of any sort. It merely permits a different foreign policy than the one Ron Paul advocates.

“To attack a dictator is not an act of aggression. A dictator is aggressive by definition and therefore has no rights. The government of a free country can validly dispose of a dictator if it is in the free country’s interest to do so”

So what happens, Brian, when the dictator was installed by the free country?

One such country we are vested in war with at this time was gifted a young Saddam by means of CIA efforts and a military coup. Iran, Iraq’s immediate neighbor, saw the first spark of democracy in the middle east crushed in a coup to replace the popularly elected Mossadegh – all British Petroleum didn’t want to pay a fair price for the oil they were drinking.

I understand I am teetering off topic with this post, but I am trying to illustrate a point – who is one country, free or not, to meddle with another country’s internal affairs, especially if their solution is self-serving and results in a catastrophe? (One can draw a STRAIGHT line through US intervention in Iran in 1953 and the Islamic Revolution in 1979.)

Nonsense. The forced extraction of wealth from an individual via the barrel of a gun implies state ownership of the individual. The right to one’s own life was not and is not a power up for delegation to the federal government. The federal government has no such power — the 16th amendment to the United States Constitution is illegal via the 10th.

If it were somehow not illegal, the entire document would be in direct contradiction of it’s foundation – the DOI.

The point doesn’t rest on whether you consider the 16th amendment valid or not. The earmarks that Ron Paul requests and accepts are unconstitutional anyway; therefore, Ron Paul violates the constitution.

[…] established in the history of man: a federal union of independent States, with the singular, moral, legal, stated purpose of government being “That to secure these rights [individual life, liberty, […]

[…] The process is a typical “praise mediocrity”, and simultaneously shit allover the hero – which in essence, makes no man worthy of admiration from another. Pretty neat little trick if you want to install ideas into a populace diametrically opposed to those it was founded upon and are chained to by law. […]

[…] liberty, independence, and de-centralized government as the proper course of this country — this union of States. &nbsp This post released on 21. Apr, 2011 &nbsp « Richard Nikoley Joins the Fight […]

[…] and uphold the US Constitution, also swear oaths to the foundation upon which it rests — the Declaration of Independence — which is the only document in American history to morally, rationally, and legally justify […]

[…] member State (and general government between such States) of this union is outside the bounds of it’s core contract, the Declaration of Independence, if they decide to stick a gun in your face and violate your […]

[…] The law enforcement officer who performs a body slam on Adam is exactly such a man who would “follow orders” to herd you into military slavery and violate his oath to the US Constitution, which has no provision for you being a piece of government property to be ordered around the world to enact violence against others, nor can it. […]

[…] Spooner is absolutely right in No Treason – although I will add that I am convinced Declarationism is the modern solution to a very old problem at this point, a solution that does not discard the […]

[…] Any State regulations on the production, sale, and consumption of food products — with the threat of violent force for non-compliance — dictates an immediate consideration by the States for temporary — and if not corrected, permanent — expulsion from our federal union of States under the principle of declarationism. […]